said by SD6 :

Please don't present as facts things you don't know or have information for.

said by wifi4milez :

That might be true, although I have no information to support or refute it.

They have authority over many things, however as far as I know the only build out requirements they cover are for POTS service.

How do you figure? Its nothing more than VDSL.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_High_···ber_Line

said by marigolds :

The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.
Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed).

said by SD6 :

Actually, in New York, FIOS is considered to be an upgrade of the telephone infrastructure.

said by SD6 :

And FCC has a lot of authority over carriers for other than voice service, CATV franchising for one.

said by SD6 :

And Uverse is more than DSL.

said by wifi4milez :

Uverse is nothing more than DSL, so it shouldnt apply there. FIOS is not using the telephone infrastructure at all, so it shouldnt apply to them either.

said by marigolds :

Are you sure? I don't mean going over the phone wires, I mean using the conduits, pedastals, etc.

said by marigolds :

U-Verse is not purely DSL. Some U-Verse deployments are IPTV over fiber (I would guess only in locations where AT&T has a statewide franchise agreement, as opposed to other areas where AT&T is deploying with on franchise agreement at all).

said by wifi4milez :

Uverse is nothing more than DSL, so it shouldnt apply there. FIOS is not using the telephone infrastructure at all, so it shouldnt apply to them either.

said by SD6 :

Yes, they do. Verizon provides landline phone service practically everywhere they have rolled out FIOS.

said by marigolds :

What I mean is, I wonder if since ATT/Verizon are deploying using their phone infrastructure, if they are considered to have high enough penetration to not be overbuilders. In other words, FIOS and U-Verse are viewed as advanced service deployments and not basic service deployments. (Buildout requirements are applied to advanced services as well.)

said by marigolds :

That seems bizarre. Does Verizon provide landline phone services in those areas? That's the only way I could think of for them not to be consider an overbuilder.

said by marigolds :

I watched the Illinois issue closely. They were not required to build out the entire geographic area, just those which passed existing density requirements.
Similarly for New York City, I doubt there is any residential area of the city that does not pass the minimum density requirements already.
Based on what SD6 said though, I wonder if the ILEC issue comes into play when determining if they are an overbuilder.

said by wifi4milez :

I am not so sure about that. If you recall last year there was a huge issue regarding ATT deploying UVerse in some small towns in Illinois. The local governments told ATT they needed to deploy to the entire geographic area, or they couldnt do it at all. ATT then basically told them to take a hike and passed over that municipality. Perhaps the buildout requirements still held for them because they are an ILEC, however its just an example of how the rules have been (recently) dictated on a local level.

said by SD6 :

I did a Verizon franchise in NY last year and they were NOT treated as an overbuilder; nor were they in any other jurisdiction in NY that I know of (and I know dozens). So where is the disconnect? Perhaps you are thinking of a state rule? Or perhaps there is an exception so that FIOS was not considered an overbuilder?

said by marigolds :

The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.
Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed).

said by marigolds :

The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.
Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed).

said by marigolds :

It is considered an overbuilder, and is treated that way for franchise purposes. This is part of the reason Verizon had little issue with getting local franchises. FIOS actually is much closer to a overbuilder business plan than an incumbent business plan.
AT&T, on the other hand, has a business plan built on being a separate market from cable tv. Their business plan depends significantly on price point competition through reduced regulation relative to competing products.

said by wifi4milez :

I think you are just confirming what I am saying. ATT didnt think the original conditions presented to them by the state/local government were fair. Now that those conditions are more reasonable, they have rolled out their services as promised.

said by KrK :

Not so. AT&T decided a long time ago (back when they were SBC) that they would withhold DSL, and later Project Pronto, and now U-Verse to anywhere who didn't give them a big sweetheart deal and protection from competition and consumer protections.

And they played hardball, actually telling end consumers that the reason they couldn't get said services was because of their PUC, or Corporation Commission, or because of certain politicians, and that you need to contact xxxxxx to complain.

Most states folded like wet paper bags. Wisconsin was just one of the more recent.

said by wifi4milez :

Again, that just further proves my point. If the original laws didnt have so many conditions attached then ATT would have simply built out to begin with.

said by marigolds :

The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.

said by marigolds :

Coverage requirements only apply to the first provider in an area or the dominant (40%+ market share) provider(s) in an area.
They do not apply to overbuilders entering a market.

said by Karl Bode :

Because AT&T decided to sue any town or city that told them they could ignore existing laws.

said by Karl Bode :

So stripping consumer protections is pro-consumer.

How come it never happened under the old franchise system then?

The bottom line is if municipalities keep pushing back on the carriers, then they will simple pass over that town/city/etc and move on. Guess who gets hurt when that happens......THE CONSUMER.

said by marigolds :

Because the old franchise system had consumer protections and coverage requirements.

said by wifi4milez :

How come it never happened under the old franchise system then? The bottom line is that without changing the franchise laws, no other carriers would have deployed anything anywhere. The old rules were prohibitive and anti-business. The new rules make it attractive for additional carriers to actually want to provide service to a given area. As it stands now a percentage of the residents of Wisconsin (and a number of other states as well) have choices for video content that they didnt have a few years ago.

said by Karl Bode :

Yeah weird, the same exact choices they could have had under the old franchise system, except with broader deployment, their eminent domain rights intact, and consumer protections. Other than that, great point.

Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content.

said by wifi4milez :

So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers?

said by wifi4milez :

So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers?

said by nasadude :

yeah, how's that working out for consumers?

quote:

---

Since the law was enacted, cable and satellite television rates have risen even in areas with increased competition

---

said by wifi4milez :

Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. How ATT pulled off this horrendous con is mind boggling, since providing more competition is clearly a terrible thing. The citizens of Wisconsin should demand ATT immediately cease deploying services, as they are furious they can now choose between two (or more) providers. :p

said by wifi4milez :

Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. ...